Reply to "A comment on the GTCC stored charge model"

For the original article see ibid., vol. 38, no. 6, p. 1467-76 (1991). The authors agree that in his comment Heasell correctly points out that the "derivation" of the GTCC relation in the aforementioned paper is not mathematically rigorous, however, the authors consider that the approach is not fallacious, and is identical to the weighting methods of previous approaches which have yielded useful charge control relations that are capable of predicting charge partitioning under less general conditions. This is further re-enforced by the fact that the low level injection form of the GTCC relation has been rigorously derived mathematically by one of the authors, J.S. Hamel (see ibid., vol. 40, p. 1713-16, 1993), and has therefore been generally verified analytically and need not rely solely upon numerical verification as suggested by Heasell. It is conceded that Heasell correctly emphasizes the importance of utilizing mathematical rigor in developing device models, which was the principal motivation behind the work in Hamel's 1993 paper.